MANCHIN SEEKS REVERSAL OF WHITE HOUSE PERMITTING RULE: The White House finalized a rule this morning to implement the modest permitting reform included in last year’s debt limit deal – but at least one Democrat isn’t happy with the rule, and is vowing to overturn it through a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act.
Some background: The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality finalized a rule that aims to speed up the permitting process for projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. The new rule would set up one and two-year deadlines for environmental reviews, establish categorical exclusions to speed up the approval of renewable energy projects, and require that agencies should consider the effects of climate change in environmental reviews and further consult with communities affected by the projects. The new rule also removes certain provisions that the White House considered “legally questionable” within a 2020 rule.
But: The White House’s interpretation of the NEPA changes within the debt limit deal varies greatly from the original agreement reached with House Republicans. The original legislation did not have provisions requiring environmental reviews to consider the impact of climate change, for example.
In September of last year, we caught up with Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin on whether or not he was given a heads up on the permitting reform changes made by the White House – to which he said “No, [they] did not.”
“I can work through the differences and disagreements I have,” Manchin told Nancy. “That’s the process we have here and you have to have communication in order to do that. … We’ll work through it and they know how I feel about that.”
Fast forward to now: Manchin is now looking to overturn the permitting provisions through a disapproval resolution, he announced immediately following the finalized rule release.
His words, not ours: “At a time when everyone agrees that it takes too long to build infrastructure in this country, the Administration’s new NEPA regulations will take us backwards. All the White House had to do was implement the commonsense, bipartisan permitting reforms in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, that all sides agreed upon, but once again they’ve disregarded the deal that was made, the intent of the law that was signed, and are instead corrupting it with their own radical agenda. This will only lead to more costly delays and litigation. For this reason, I intend to lead a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to get back to the deal that they cut with Congress and signed into law.”
Consider this: It’s unlikely that the White House would pass a resolution overturning their own rules.
However: Some House Republicans negotiating the debt limit deal were furious about the changes to their legislation – so much so that Rep. Garret Graves, the key negotiator of the permitting provisions, said that further permitting reform legislation in Congress is all but dead if the White House is expected to take “extreme liberties” with its interpretations of the law.
Something to look ahead toward: Both Senate ENR Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member John Barrasso are still working on a permitting reform package that seeks to speed up approval for energy projects across the board. We’ll keep you posted on any updates on that.
Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment writers Breanne Deppisch (@breanne_dep) and Nancy Vu (@NancyVu99). Email bdeppisch@washingtonexaminer dot com or nancy.vu@washingtonexaminer dot com for tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email, and we’ll add you to our list.
SENATE DEMOCRATS ACCUSE BIG OIL OF DECEPTION IN NEW REPORT: Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee released a report today claiming that major oil companies had misled the public on their role contributing to climate change – a culmination of a three-year inquiry begun last Congress by the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.
The bottom line: “For more than half a century, Big Oil has misled the American public about its role in the climate crisis, doing everything in its power to keep the United States and the world dependent on its polluting products,” the 65 page report concludes.
The report specifically focuses on ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
What’s new: The Budget Committee – which has focused on climate under Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse – is set to hold a hearing this week that will feature testimony by House Oversight Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin, on the topic of the investigation, as Nancy previewed last week.
In today’s report, the Budget Committee Democrats said they built on the work done by the House Oversight Committee, which included the collection of millions of emails and documents via subpoena, and presented new findings.
Specifically, they say that documents show that companies sought to dismiss reports about the climate effects of burning fossil fuels despite acknowledging the findings internally, intentionally overplayed the emissions advantages of natural gas, used trade associations to lobby for unpopular measures, and obstructed the congressional investigation.
WHITE HOUSE WEIGHS BANNING RUSSIAN URANIUM BY EXECUTIVE ORDER: Officials at the National Security Council, the Energy Department, and other parts of the Biden administration are eyeing the possibility of banning Russian uranium imports by executive action, Bloomberg reports.
Such a move would be in line with legislation, authored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, that easily cleared the House in December.In the upper chamber, though, the bill was blocked by Sen. Ted Cruz for unrelated procedural reasons, as Nancy explained in a deep dive.
We caught up with the chairwoman last night, who stated that the White House’s moves were “good news.”
“I would prefer to see the bill passed, so I’m going to keep working on that,” she told Nancy. “It should be Congress taking this action to send a message to the markets that we are committed to building up the uranium in America.”
When asked if conversations with Cruz were amounting to any progress – specifically, a lift on the hold – she simply stated, “We’re working on it.”
Russian uranium accounts for almost a quarter of the supply for the U.S. nuclear fleet, and imports provide an estimated $1 billion a year to Russia. Additionally, Congress passed legislation earlier this year appropriating $2.7 billion in subsidies for building out a domestic uranium supply chain – but the funding is contingent on a ban on Russian imports being enacted by legislation or executive action.
G-7 COAL PHASE-OUT AGREEMENT IS OFFICIAL: The Group of Seven nations this morning made official its commitment to phasing out coal, calling for the use of unabated coal to be ended by the early 2030s in a communique.
The caveat: The document also allows for phasing out coal on an alternative “timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries’ net-zero pathways.” That language was included to give leeway to member countries Japan and Germany, Reuters reported, which both rely on coal for more than a quarter of their total electricity.
Criticism from Cassidy: Sen. Bill Cassidy, the author of legislation to impose a “pollution fee” on carbon-intensive imports, criticized the G-7 agreement because “it allows China & India to build new coal plants w/out restrictions.”
EPA LETTER ON FORMALDEHYDE: Lawmakers are expressing concerns around the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft risk evaluation for formaldehyde – a colorless, but strong-smelling chemical that’s often used in the production of industrial resins and is classified as a carcinogen – stating that their evaluation could hurt American manufacturing jobs.
Some background: Last month, the EPA released a draft risk evaluation that found formaldehyde poses an “unreasonable risk to human health,” while noting that these risks may not apply to everyone and everywhere.
In a bipartisan letter led by Democratic Rep. Don Davis, the lawmakers noted that formaldehyde is used in a number of products, such as construction materials, cars and ammunition. If the EPA were to impose tighter regulations on the chemical, they argue, it would risk disrupting supply chains.
“All of these important supply chains would be disrupted if EPA proceeds with a regulation that will make it difficult, if not impossible, to manufacture and use formaldehyde in America,” the letter reads.
Who’s on the letter: Along with Davis, Democratic Rep. Sanford Bishop and GOP Reps. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, David Rouzer, Brad Finstad, and Morgan Griffith also signed on.
What they’re asking for: The lawmakers are calling for the EPA to revise its formaldehyde workplace limits to bring them in line with accepted standards as other jurisdictions. The letter states that the proposed standard of 11 parts per billion is difficult to achieve, and that the U.S.’s proposed standard is 30 times lower than workplace standards established by the European Union. The lawmakers also want to hold at least one in-person public meeting on the draft evaluation.
The members want the agency to extend the comment period for the draft risk evaluation by at least 30 days, in order for more stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on the draft. The group is also asking for the EPA to seek input from other agencies that may be affected by further regulation, such as the DOD and USDA, to ensure a “more coordinated approach.”
RUNDOWN
Canary Media Can streetlights unlock big city EV charging? This startup thinks so
Los Angeles Times Nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain could roil Nevada U.S. Senate race